Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1887-08-25
Atlantic and Pacific Railroad Indemni-
ty Land Ordered Restored to the
Public Domain.
Secretary Lamar, in Letter to Sparks,
Gives His Reasons for This
Opinion.
Between 25,000,000 and 100000
Acres Will Thus be Thrown Open
to Settlement,
Important Decision

order of withdrawal of idemnity lands for
the benefit of the Atlantic and Pacific
Railroad Company and in a long letter
to the commissioner of the general land
office directs that they may be restored
to settlement under the presumption and
homestead laws. 1t is stated that between
25 100000 and 100000 acres are invol-
we'd in this decision in the case of the
Atlantic and Pacific company alone. The
order also applies to all of the other
railroads named IN the Secretary's rules
of May % last except the st. Paul Min
neopolis and Manitoba, Ghe Hastings and
Dakota, the st. Paul and Pacific, the st.
Paul and Souix City, the Sou1x City and
st. Paul and the Winona and ST. Peter.
These are still under consideration and
undecided.
The following are some of the main
points of the decision of Secretary Lam
ar on the revocation of withdrawal and
restoration OF idemnity lands to settle
ment under the presumption and home
stead laws in the case OF the Atlantic and
Pacific Railroad Company idemnity land
We're [ called upon to treat, as an orig
inal proposition the question as to the
legal authorit y of the Secretary to with
draw from the operation of the settle
ment laws lands within the idemnity
limits of said grants l should have such
doubts of the existence of any such au-
thority as to have restrained me from
its exercise. Tt would seem that the
very words of the act, the odd numbered
sections of land hereby granted shall not
be liable to sale or entry or pre- enc ption
before or after they are surveyed except
q 9 N
of themselves indicate most clearly the
Legislative will that there should not be
withdrawn for the benefit of said COM
pany from sale or entry any other lands
except the odd numbered sections with
in the granted limits as expressly desig-
mated in the act. But when the provis
ions following this IN the very same sem
tance is considered. but the provisions
of the act of September, 1s41, granting
pre-em ption rights, and the acts amen
datory thereof, and of the act entitled an
act to secure homesteads to actual settler
upon the pnblic domain, approved May
20, 1862 shall be, and the same are here
by extended to all other lands on the line
of said road when surveyed, except those
hereby granted to said company it is
DIFFICULT TO RESIST THE CONCLUSION
that Congress intended that all other
lands except those hereby granted to said
company shall be open to settlement I'M
der the presumption and homestead laws
and TO prohibit the exercise of any dis
erection in the executive in the matter
of determining what lands shall or shall
not
BE WITHDRAWN.
ANY al 70 xpb
not said granting act took from the Sec
rotary the authority to withdraw said
1demnity limits from settlement. It is
manifest that the said act gave no special
authority Or direction to the Executive
to withdraw said lands and when such
withdrawal was made it was done by vir-
tue of the general authority over such
matters possessed by the secretary of the
lpterlor and in the exercise of his dis
creation; SO that were the withdrawal to
be revoked no law would be violated, no
contract broken.
The company would be placed exactly
in the position which the law gave it and
deprived of no rights acquired thereun-
der. 1t would yet have its right to select
idemnity for lost lands but in so doing
it would have no advantages over the
settler as it now has In contravention of
the policy OF the government in denial of
the right unq uestlonably conferred upon
settlers by the land laws of the country
and apparently specially protected by
the provisions of the granting act under
consideration. Having examined the
act of Congress and ascertained just
what grant or contract was made, turn
to the assertion that no proper oppor-
tunity has been afforded the company to
identify or select either granted or idem-
nifty LANDS along large part of its line
because of the failure of the government
to make the necessary surveys. On the
mere staten ent of this position conceed-
ing its truth it would seem that a revoca-
ton of the withdrawal as to the unsurvey-
ed lands would be
AN ACT OF GREAT INJUSTICE
on the part of the executive especially
as the con- pany alleges that it offered
| and the fact is conceded to advance
and deposit sufficient sum of money to
cover the cost of said surveyes, which of
fer was declined by the Land Office. In
relation to this offer TO deposit the cost
of survey [ have to say that know of no
la W that authorizes the officers of the
iolho VIC pdi uIiCh1 W dCC0pG Ut use SuCH
deposit of money for the purpose named.
There are laws which authorize special
deposit for the purpose of making sur
veys at the instance of settlers and also
laws relating to the surveys of private
grants. But there is no law that 1 have
found which authorizes such deposits for
the purpose of surveying lands within
railroad limits.
This department, charged with the ad-
of the land laws, acted with
the utmost, if not questionable, liberali-
ty, when it withdrew the land in the in
demnity beta liberality which congress
declined to exhibit This liberality was
further shown by the fact that the in
demnity lands were withdrawn long be-
fore mile of road was built, and con-
timed withdrawn long after the time pre-
scribed by law for its construction had
expired; and more than liberality is shown
in that during the period of said with
drawals the company is allowed to present
and have approved by the local officers
its list of selections without giving pub
lic notice Of any kind, whilst the pre-
emption or homestead settler, though his
upon and cultivation of his land